satisfaction in the default of unity, and in the opening of supplementary credits when the Session was over. The Emperor has put an end to such acts, determining, first, that the Minister of Finance shall concentrate the whole control of the expenses; and by the Senatus Consultum, which you are acquainted with, he interdicts the opening of all credits in your absence. These acts of prudent foresight will have the effect of producing economy and of assuring public credit. Nevertheless, gentlemen, let us not allow public opinion to form a wrong opinion, for the country should be made acquainted with the precise state of things. The regularization of the future must not become unjustly the condemnation of the past. Our finances must not be accused of having been heretofore irregularly administered, for the strictest order has always prevailed, and your committees on the Budget have always affirmed it, even when energetically calling for the measures which have been now adopted. As to the floating debt, as the Emperor told you yesterday, it has not exceeded in proportion that of preceding reigns, and owes its origin to an employment, either glorious or productive, of the resources of the country. Government relies on your readiness to vote the Bill for the Conversion of the Four-and-a-Half per Cents. even before the discussion on the address. Each of you knows that measures in which speculation meddles, and which involve great financial interests, require to be decided on without delay, and not to be dis

The

turbed by uncertainty. I wish, in conclusion, to speak to you on a question which was raised last Session, and on which I have maturely reflected, being animated, as I have always been, with a desire to introduce into the regulations and into the habits of the Chamber everything that can give more unity to the discussions I allude to written speeches. A written speech, whatever may be its merit, is rarely in harmony with the point of the discussion. If it be long and diffuse, it chills the debate and is uttered before empty benches. In that case it is the time and dignity of the Assembly which are sacrificed to the pretensions of one member. If the speech is bitter or violent, it causes deep irritation, for nothing produces a more painful impression than calculated violence, which has not the excuse of being spoken under the impulse of the moment. A written preparation, which would appear to be the obliged companion of calmness and reflection, has never been a source of political conciliation, and astonishment is felt when it is called to mind that in the most sinister times of our Parliamentary history almost all the speeches were read. The English Parliament, whose experience and practical spirit are incontestable, interdicts in an absolute manner the reading of speeches, and scarcely tolerates the reading of a document. Thus the oratorical forms have by degrees given place to a simple and almost familiar discussion, and a few words from a sensible man are there always favourably listened to. I should be well pleased if the Legislative

Body would decide, in its own interest, to adopt the same discipline. As to myself, the manner in which I comprehend my duties and my rights as President is this: I look on myself as only the interpreter of the will of the Chamber; I am bound to cause to be listened to with respect all that it desires to hear; but I will not allow a member to continue reading his speech before a Chamber inattentive or deserted. Its discussions are intended to enlighten us, and not to make a display in the Moniteur. The summary given, as well as the full report, are not to receive manuscript lucubrations. I hope the Chamber will appreciate the sentiment which actuates me. From the day on which I was called to the President's chair the constant object of my efforts has been to increase the influence and consideration of the Chamber, and to gain its confidence by imposing on myself as a rule of conduct the most conscientious justice and the most scrupulous impartiality."

The new Papal Nuncio, Monsignor Chigi, Archbishop of Mire, was presented to the Emperor at the Tuileries on the 23rd of January, and, in reply to a short speech he made on the occasion, the Emperor said :

"I thank you for the sentiments which you express to me in the name of the Holy Father; and already, on the occasion of the New Year, his Holiness was kind enough to address General Goyon in words concerning me which deeply touched me. Be convinced that I shall always endeavour to combine my duties as a Sovereign with my devotion

Your ap

to the Holy Father. pointment to my Court will, I doubt not, contribute to render more intimate relations so essential to the welfare of religion as well as to the peace of Christendom."

In the diplomatic correspondence laid upon the table of the Legislative Chamber was a note, dated January 11, from M. Thouvenel, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Marquis de Lavalette, the French Ambassador at Rome, in which he said :—

"The lessons of experience bid the Holy See resign itself, without renouncing its rights, to practical transactions which would restore tranquillity in the bosom of the Catholic world, which would renew the traditions of the Papacy that has for a long time been a shield to Italy, and would re-unite to it the destinies of a nation so cruelly tried, and restored to itself after so many centuries. It is necessary for us to know whether we must perish or abandon all hope of seeing the Holy See, while taking into consideration accomplished facts, apply itself to the study of a combination which would secure to the Sovereign Pontiff the permanent conditions of dignity, security, and independence necessary to the exercise of his authority. These ideas being accepted, we will employ sincere and energetic efforts to insure the adoption at Turin of a plan of conciliation, the bases of which we should settle with the Government of His Holiness. Italy and the Papacy would then cease to be in opposite camps, and would soon return to their natural intercourse. Thanks to the moral obligations which France has

guaranteed, Rome would, in case of need, find the necessary support on the very side where danger seemed to threaten her. Such a result would excite a lively feeling of gratitude and satisfaction throughout the Catholic world."

The Marquis de Lavalette communicated this note to Cardinal Antonelli at an interview, the result of which he thus stated to the French Government :

"I was more afflicted than surprised when Cardinal Antonelli replied to all the considerations I had submitted to him by an absolute refusal, declaring that any transaction between the Holy See and those who had despoiled it was impossible; and that it did not rest with the Sovereign Pontiff, any more than with the Sacred College, to cede the least particle of the territory of the Church. I then observed to Cardinal Antonelli that I completely put aside the question of right, and that my only object was to offer the Papal Government an opportunity of emerging from a state of things disastrous to its interests, and threatening to the peace of the Christian world."

Cardinal Antonelli expressed his thanks for the affectionate interest shown by the French Government. He denied that there was disunion between the Sovereign Pontiff and Italy, and said that if the Holy Father had ceased to hold intercourse with the Cabinet of Turin, his relations with Italy were excellent. Italian himself, and the first of all Italians, His Holiness suffered when they suffered. He witnessed with grief the cruel trials the VOL. CIV.

"As

Italian Church had to bear. regards entering into any compact with the spoilers of the Church," continued Cardinal Antonelli,

--

We will never do it. Any transaction on this ground is impossible. The Sovereign Pontiff, as well as the Cardinals, before being nominated, bind themselves by oath never to cede any of the territory of the Church. The Holy Father will, therefore, make no concession of that nature. A conclave of Cardinals would have no right to do so, neither would a new Pope, nor any of his successors from century to century.

"With reference to the question of your Excellency, whether there is any hope of an arrangement, I believe it to be my duty to reply in the negative."

In the debate in the Senate on the 24th of February, M. de Boissy claimed to speak on the Address, and in the course of a desultory harangue, alluding to the passport system, he said :—

"When this question was at first raised I was told, and with some appearance of reason, that when I complained that one could not go as far as St. Cloud without a passport, the thing was incredible and without example. Here, however, is an example :A person, a proprietor, who inhabits Paris, has written to me enclosing the copy of a complaint which he addressed to the Minister of the Interior, for having been arrested at Menil-Amelot, five leagues from Paris, and not two-and-a-half leagues, as I stated by mistake.

He was arrested, and asked for his passport; he had none about him, for he had not taken out one. They put on [M]

him, not handcuffs, as he had stated in his complaint, but chains on his wrists; and thus chained he was led from brigade to brigade, first to Dammartin, and then to Meaux, where he was thrown into prison. I am far from attacking the gendarmes, who only did their duty, for every gendarme has the right, or, rather, it is his duty, to ask if one has his papers or not, and to arrest those who have not. The person of whom I speak had not his papers; but really there are very few among us here who when going out for a walk ever thinks of having his passport in his pocket. Now, I call the attention of the Government to this fact, and I ask whether it is just that French citizens should be obliged never to take a walk in the environs of Paris, while every Englishman may traverse all France, without a passport, simply because he is an Englishman, and consequently presumed to be an honest man, and may travel in France without having anything in his pocket but his card, which does not prove what he is, but only what he wishes to appear.'

M. de Boissy then alluded to the war in the Crimea. "That war," he said,—

"Cost France one thousand four hundred millions, which, however, I do not consider too dear, inasmuch as it revealed one fact to us which we did not know, and which made us very happy namely, the relative military weakness of England. In a military point of view England is only in the third rank-at most in the second. But the great fact which Europe perceived, and which struck all people, was the

weakness of England when she is alone; and this is why I wish that we should yield less to her and less frequently."

In the war in Italy it was, he said, England that gained most. In fact, foreign domination was merely displaced. Instead of Austria it was England that predominated. "There is one thing," he continued,

"Which I regret; it is this, that the money which these wars cost us was not differently employed. I mean to say I am convinced that, with what we spent in these two glorious warsthe one more so than the other— we could with much more advantage have gone to London." (Much laughter.)

The President.-M. de Boissy, the shorthand writers will mention in the Moniteur the laughter which your words have excited in the Senate.

M. de Boissy-I very willingly accept it, and I shall be proud and happy if the shorthand writers continue to be real photographers of all that is said in the Senate. Yes, in my opinion, and according to my wish, if it could be realized, we should have gone to London for a smaller outlay; and I add that we should have the advantage of going with a friendly nation, instead of going to Sebastopol with a nation, our ally in name, but in point of fact our enemy in every circumstance, and as dangerous, if not more so, under the name of ally, as under that of enemy.

As for other wars, those of the remote East, for instance, M. de Boissy thought, though some glory and some advantages might accrue to France, that these ad

vantages would be less for France than for England. It was all nonsense to go to China to put stop to barbarities, when the English committed far greater barbarities in India; but these, he supposed, should be called philanthropy, because they were practised by the English. It was England that paid the European coalition against France; it was England that imposed on France the treaties of 1815; and if the treaties were detested, why should not those who imposed them be also detested?

General the Marquis de Lawoestine. They were imposed on us by all Europe.

The President-Do not interrupt, M. de Lawoestine, or I shall be forced to apply the regulations.

The Marquis de Boissy.No, it was not Europe that imposed them on us; it was the English; they were the masters, and they wished to dispose of France without consulting France; they would not allow French Plenipotentiaries to be admitted to the conferences, nor that the despoiled should know the name of the spoiler. You love the English! Well, then, Waterloo!-a name that I pronounce to revive all old animosities. At this Waterloo there were none of the petty Italian princes whom you insulted last year; it was the English, and you have never said a word against them. Do you fear them? For my part, I do not. (Laughter.)

General the Marquis de Lawoestine. Nor we either.

The Marquis de Boissy.-If you do not give the English time to form a new coalition you will easily conquer them. For this

you have only to maintain neutrality with America. You will then see England offering to the world the spectacle of a people enduring everything for the sake of money, and haughty only with the weak. You know how humble she has always been with the United States. If she now wishes to involve you in the American struggle it is to weaken a Power of which she is afraid. I hope never to see France involved in a war with the United States, for the humiliation of that Power would give England the supremacy of the seas. I now ask myself whether I ought to enter on the Italian question. ("No, no.") I will not, then, do so, but only regret that the amendment on the evacuation of Rome, that has been so much talked of, should not have been produced in this discussion.

In answer to M. de Boissy, M. Baroche, President of the Council of State, observed:

That

"With regard to what M. de Boissy said on the subject of passports, I have to remark that, in order to facilitate intercourse between France and foreign countries, it was last year decided that the subjects of every country which admitted Frenchmen without passports should enjoy the same facilities in France. is the case at present with England, Belgium, and America. That change at first gave rise to a difficulty, which was soon removed. It was felt to be impossible to require of Frenchmen entering the country from abroad more than was required of certain foreigners. But that does not in any way affect the obligation of having a passport for the interior. This passport